[Starman]

Since I don't want to be accused of driving the other thread away from its theme I will ask my question here. What is the benefit of a theologian being accredited if that same theologian approves and instigates cruel punishments such as burning alive, torture to get confessions, persecutions, bloody wars,
Theft of property and so on?


Excerpt:
Paschal I (pope 817-824) blinded his opponents before beheading them. He was made a saint. Hadrian III (pope 884-885) was also keen on blinding his political opponents and once had a woman whipped naked through the streets of Rome. He too is now a saint. Over the centuries the Roman Church tortured, flogged, branded, and killed countless thousands of people, many of them for crimes which no longer exist. Mutilation was a common punishment throughout Christendom. For example a Crusader who struck another and drew blood was liable to have a hand chopped off. Other offenders suffered the removal of limbs, or of the nose, ears, lips, tongue, or genitals. Branding was used to disfigure bodies, arms, hands, cheeks and foreheads. Penitent heretics were branded with a cross. A fray-maker in church might expect to be branded with the letter F, and a blasphemer with the letter B.

Bishops' courts in England passed sentences of whipping and branding even on their own clerics. The great English saint Thomas Becket was one of many who had recourse to the branding iron .

http://www.heretication.info/_torture.html


Why should these acts be whitewashed as if of no consequence simply because those committing them or instigating them were considered orthodox and accredited? Why should these acts and beliefs not be considered WEIRD while the lesser acts of the so-called unaccredited theologians are vehemently condemned as WEIRD? Am I missing something here because try as I might I just can't see the logic behind that kind of reasoning.

Sorry but I just don't buy into the orthodoxy accredited can do no wrong while the so-called unaccredited unorthodox who commit lesser evils are tagged as WEIRD. If forcing confessions via torture and ripping out tongues mangling people's feet, uncoiling their intestines, and skinning people alive or roasting them alive isn't weird bvecause it's done by orthodoxy, what is?

BTW

This question is based on a statement that most damaging weird ideas can be expected to arise from the unorthodox and unnacreddited. History doesn't quite mesh with that view. Also, I disagree with calling those who practiced these things Chistians as the article does.

[RickJ]

Since I don't want to be accused of driving the other thread away from its theme I will ask my question here. What is the benefit of a theologian being accredited ...

I hope you don't mind. I only need to read that far to give my answer/opinion. Being "accredited" in the field of Theology, in my opinion, means nothing... absolutely nothing.

i.e. there IS no benefit in a theologian being "accredited".

[Credo]

Very good question, Starman. I may be wrong (so please correct me if I am), but I get the impression that by "accredited" you don't necessarily mean "have a legitimate degree from a seminary/university and is seen as a legitimate do-er of theology" but you rather mean "seen as a legitimate authority on theology (in whatever fashion that might be)." From this stand point (actually, from both stand points), your query is good--yes, there is not rational in authorizing a theologian who then tortures and/or executes his or her enemies, especially if the offense is a difference of opinion or interpretation.

Unfortunately, Christian theologians have been doing this kind of thing for about 1900 years; in the 100's and 200's, they vehemently opposed Gnostic Christianity, sometimes to the point of violence to them and ostracization. The funny thing about the concept of orthodoxy is that people believe it to be the truth (orthodoxy is Greek for "right thinking" or "right beliefs", "right" in the sense of truth, which is how the term "right" has been seen by people for thousands of years). But according to Christian history, what we call orthodoxy is actually just the winner; if the Gnostic Christians had somehow been able to become the major players within Christianity, Gnostic Christianity would have been called orthodoxy and anything differing from that would be seen as heretical.

The unfortunate thing for Christianity and all the other major religions which have been around for a few millennia is that the people who are usually in leadership positions are foreigners to the heart of Christianity. So Christians commonly have to resist these people and policies within their own religion that would turn Jesus' teachings and message into nothing but a hellish nightmare. Another thing is that many Christians of different traditions have kind of forgotten all the stuff, good and bad, that these "saints" have done in the past. It's not because they're stupid, they just never knew (and no one told them) or something like that.

Basically, those who are either deemed theologians are call themselves theologians but don't act like Jesus are not true theologians. Their god seems to be themselves because the god they talk about looks so much like them rather than they looking like the God that Jesus and the Prophets talked about. So I wouldn't say what these people say is the truth if they inflict pain on others. I know this probably doesn't really answer your question, but my point has been that these people don't represent true Christianity and those who stick up for them are not true Christians, as much as they may say they are (i.e. they're neither accredited theologians or servants of God). Hope this helped:)

[Morganite]

Since I don't want to be accused of driving the other thread away from its theme I will ask my question here. What is the benefit of a theologian being accredited if that same theologian approves and instigates cruel punishments such as burning alive, torture to get confessions, persecutions, bloody wars,
theft of property and so on?


Excerpt:
Paschal I (pope 817-824) blinded his opponents before beheading them. He was made a saint. Hadrian III (pope 884-885) was also keen on blinding his political opponents and once had a woman whipped naked through the streets of Rome. He too is now a saint. Over the centuries the Roman Church tortured, flogged, branded, and killed countless thousands of people, many of them for crimes which no longer exist. Mutilation was a common punishment throughout Christendom. For example a Crusader who struck another and drew blood was liable to have a hand chopped off. Other offenders suffered the removal of limbs, or of the nose, ears, lips, tongue, or genitals. Branding was used to disfigure bodies, arms, hands, cheeks and foreheads. Penitent heretics were branded with a cross. A fray-maker in church might expect to be branded with the letter F, and a blasphemer with the letter B.

Bishops' courts in England passed sentences of whipping and branding even on their own clerics. The great English saint Thomas Becket was one of many who had recourse to the branding iron .

http://www.heretication.info/_torture.html


Why should these acts be whitewashed as if of no consequence simply because those committing them or instigating them were considered orthodox and accredited? Why should these acts and beliefs not be considered WEIRD while the lesser acts of the so-called unaccredited theologians are vehemently condemned as WEIRD? Am I missing something here because try as I might I just can't see the logic behind that kind of reasoning.

Sorry but I just don't buy into the orthodoxy accredited can do no wrong while the so-called unaccredited unorthodox who commit lesser evils are tagged as WEIRD. If forcing confessions via torture and ripping out tongues mangling people's feet, uncoiling their intestines, and skinning people alive or roasting them alive isn't weird bvecause it's done by orthodoxy, what is?

BTW

This question is based on a statement that most damaging weird ideas can be expected to arise from the unorthodox and unnacreddited. History doesn't quite mesh with that view. Also, I disagree with calling those who practiced these things Chistians as the article does.

What do you mean by "accredited"? Accredited by whom, how, and for what purpose?



M:)

[Fr_Chuck]

Ok, I can see that you have been raised in a public school system, MOST church schools are not acreddited by any government agency. Many have their own acreddiation groups, but they have no basis. If you are looing at in the US for example a school to be accredited, you will not find most Christian schools in that list, since they are not required first and have no need to get the government invovled in their school or church.

So with that until just more recent years in the US there was no accreditation, so if looking into the 1800's there is no such thing except that it is an accepted and an approved school for that religiouis group.

And schools that are accredited in one nation may have no accreditation in another.

So you will find almost none have a level of accreditation you may be referring to. And thank God they don't